Talk:Aircraft Stability
1) In Contents, section 2.1 has no title. Please make sure to either remove the sub-section or add a title. 2) In Static Stability section, "pitch moment" was changed to "pitching moment". 3) There is no link to your profile. Hsivk 20:42, September 29, 2009 (UTC)Siva Harikumar *Make sure that your axes are labeled whenever you use them *You need to include citations (with page numbers) to your sources of information throughout *Include categories to help catalog your article within the wiki *I would have expected at least a mention of the static margin or diagram showing the longitudinal moments on an aircraft *You cover a lot of material here, which is good, but you should spend more time on the impact of these modes on design. (This is a design course, after all) *Lots of people still design airplanes that don't have digital flight systems and there are reasons for making aircraft stable even if an aircraft does have digital stability augmentation. Saying it has little impact is incorrect and makes it sound like the entire article was pointless. *Include typical values or oscillation times to help readers get a better feel for the various forms of stability --Wengler 16:55, October 1, 2009 (UTC) Suggestions I find your page rather complete and understandable. I think pictures are well chosen and really useful. But my first impression is that some of your sentences are a bit too long, making article harder to read. Questions and remarks : *Why don't you give a picture with the conventional orientation of the body-attached coordinate frame. This may allow to shorten some sentences. *In the paragraph Dynamic Stablity, you may explain why 12 equations are needed to fully describe the flight. *what you refer as static stability is also called 'the positive pitch stiffness' and is not exactly equivalent to a stability criterion. it is more like a preferred behavior for the aircraft. Maybe it is worth explaining it ? * There are no values at all in your page. You can maybe indicate the time needed by a commercial aircraft to go back to equilibrium after some given perturbations ? This way you could give some orders of magnitude of time, angles,...that are likely to be encountered ? *References are not often cited throughout the article. (Note: the above comments were made annonymously from 143.215.102.134, presumably the other student assigned to evaluate this page.) The Phrase "enhanced their difficulties" is awkward. Perhaps "exacerbated their difficulties" ? -"This is a direct quote, not mine." Do not refer to angle of attack as "aoa." Call it alpha, as it is labeled in your equation. You can probably even paste in a greek alpha from the character map. The sentence "Many texts will illustrate the same aspect with respect to the lift coefficient instead." is vauge and should either be expanded or removed. If you keep it, you'll need to reference such texts. You should use subsubheadings or bold the important words to make this article more navigable. You NEED to discuss the static margin. Your final sentence is important, but badly presented. First off, it needs a reference. Second, it is completely wrong. Yes some aircraft are not stable without the aid of computers, but they are still stable. You need to explain WHY this is the case. What benefit is gained by making the aircraft depend on computers for stability? This section should be expanded significantly. -- Matt Daskilewicz Overall, it is clear that you addressed much of the concerns that were previously suggested. The section on dynamic stability is pretty good. Here are some further points to improve upon * Your opening description to the subject is detailed only by your first sentence. The other sentences in that section are not well connected. * Your in-line citations are not linked to the reference section * "...a change in alpha, or angle of attack (α)..." "Alpha" is not the name of the variable being changed, it is merely the symbol. Saying , "...a change in angle of attack (α)..." would be sufficient. This is done more than once. * There is a heading line dividing your "Static Margin" section in two. * A better use of subheadings could be used * The term "master equations" is used but it is not explained what these equations are. * there is a lack of referencing were your figures are sourced. --Bsforzo 15:59, October 23, 2009 (UTC) Brandon Sforzo Review # The article seemed to cover the major aspects of the subject, but I was a little confused by where the longer sections were going. Perhaps a better use of sub-headings would clear it all up. # Citations are more useful when linked to the references, and there were a few sections where certain facts were not cited. # Images and pictures that were not original to yourself need citations in the caption. # Other than those small issues, it was a good article. Michael.jones 18:19, October 23, 2009 (UTC)